How do the likes of JD Vance and Drumpf rationalise no more DEI when they have wives who are DEI? It makes no sense.
How do the likes of JD Vance and Drumpf rationalise no more DEI when they have wives who are DEI? It makes no sense.
"Laws for the, not for me"
Their wives are not dei because that's not what dei means.
Don't accept their language.
The theory behind DEI policies is to formally challenge personal bias (both explicit and subconscious) in hiring and participation. There's nothing inherently tied to unfairly favoring minority groups other than the fact that they are usually the target of negative bias.
It's a pretty basic and logical idea that acknowledges human fallibility. I hate that it was rapidly co-opted on all sides as a shorthand for racism and opposition to cis-white-male dominance.
It's a position that could have been filled by a man but a woman was selected instead. hmmmmmm
That's the funny thing: they don't.
Hypocrisy is written all over their souls.... If they have any, that is.
You assume they care about truth as an ideal to uphold.
Their optimization model is set to maximize power and wealth for their people. Truth is a tool to use or discard as needed in reach of their goal. It makes perfect sense, just not within the logic and morals framework you or I would use.
DEI during hiring is things like:
- Making sure job postings are put up in spaces where minority populations have a similar chance to see them as majority populations. I.e. post at HBCU and Women's colleges' job boards, not just at the hiring manager's alma mater.
- Making sure the application portal is accessible to those with disabilities
DEI during employment is things like:
- continuing unconscious bias training
- educating about the existence of diverse backgrounds and how that can benefit your team
- encouraging communication among your team members about how they approach problems, overcome obstacles, and achieve results
DEI is not (though the right commonly likes to use it this way):
- A slur for non-white male presenting people
- A diversity hire
- A socially acceptable term in lieu of the n-word
DEI during employment is things like:
continuing unconscious bias training educating about the existence of diverse backgrounds and how that can benefit your team encouraging communication among your team members about how they approach problems, overcome obstacles, and achieve resultsAnd this right here is why people don't like it, and how the current administration is able to get away with the stuff they say.
They see their wives as property, not humans
Vance himself was a DEI student at Yale. Hypocrisy doesn't matter.
You see, their wives are the good ones.
This kind of thinking happens all over MAGAland. People with undocumented spouses proudly voted for Trump because "he's going to deport the illegals", then they're shocked when ICE shows up at their door. Their minds were so quick to interpret "illegals" as "others I don't like" that they literally didn't even realize their own spouses would be targeted.
This is the power of misinformation combined with cultivated hate.
You're trying to apply conventional logic to this. Stop. They only want more power and money and they would say anything to get it.
exactly, no logic only excuses to grab more and more
Idk who Drumpf is but DEI, as another commenter stated, has nothing to do with non-white people in general. Marrying a non-white person does not make them in favor of DEI.
Many Chinese and Indian Americans are against DEI because they work so hard to raise their children to get into the top schools from birth then view their chances hurt by DEI. I’m less knowledgeable about Indian Americans but I can confidently say many Chinese Americans are more educated and even right wing than white Americans. You want to hear some insane politics go talk to an Irvine Chinese American.
TLDR: DEI/=Minority Minority/=liberal
Drumpf is Trump's original family name.
Even John Oliver himself said that joke's tired now.
Because it's a class war
This is typical fascism. Was Hitler a member of the Aryan race? Blue eyed, blond hair? Nope. Dude wasn't even German. Were any of his cadre? Nope.
Kim Jong Un reportedly doesn't need to use the bathroom because he is so perfect.
Trump is cracking down on illegal immigrants. Married an illegal immigrant. He's against chain migration. Melania chain migrated her family. Calls Biden sleepy Joe, then falls asleep during his trial. Says voting by mail is rampant with fraud. Votes by mail. None of this makes any sense!
To be clear, nobody actually thinks Kim Jong Un doesn't need to use the restroom. You can say anything you want about the DPRK and people will believe you, which ends up being a clickbait race for tabloid media (which is where stories like the no peeing thing come from).
So this was just bullshit? I thought this was the party line.
wives who are DEI
I don’t think you understand what DEI means. It isn’t some term that means “likes minorities”. And being against DEI isn’t racist.
Strictly speaking, DEI absolutely does NOT cover all "minority" hires. DEI is when we say, "We need more people of group X regardless of all other factors." I really doubt they married their wives for the sake of diversity. So they're nit DEI.
Now it depends whether you mean actual DEI or the nonsense that companies do in the name of DEI or the unfortunate overreaction that some people support related to DEI due to the resistance to actual, reasonable, sensible DEI.
"... regardless of all other factors..." sounds like the second of these.
That's not what DEI means, don't accept the nazis propaganda.
regardless of all other factors
Yea that's not what DEI is. Look up affinity bias and why we need things like DEI.
Genuine curiosity here- where did you get your definition of DEI?
Honestly it’s easy to get that definition of DEI when it is poorly explained and/or poorly understood.
Plenty of people particularly on the right believe all the explanatory reasoning behind DEI is thinly-veiled “reverse racism”.
Rules are there to punish bad morality.
Trump and Vance are seen as morally good, so the rules don't apply as they can do no bad. Things that the Others want, such as DEI, are naturally morally bad and every rule to punish them is fully enforced, and a few new rules are added as needed.
Rule of law and consistency do not apply for them.
"Rules for thee, not for me" and all that.
They consider women pets. They aren’t people to them.
Ugh. I hate how correct you are:/
Their goal is power, and they will use the most efficient and effective means at their disposal to secure it. Their actions are not guided by higher values or logic.
Don't try to understand fascists, you have to give up logic to be one.
Expecting consistency between beliefs and actions from bigots and fascists is a mistake.
Conservatism consists of one core value: there should be laws that protect, but do not bind, the in group while the same laws bind, but do not protect, the out group.
One of the few areas where representation is fair is assholery. There are real assholes from all genders, ethnicity and religious backgrounds.
You can be non-white, non-binary, non-wasp and still be an asshole. And other assholes will accept you, if it helps shield their evil agenda from the most obvious accusations.
And guess what political side has learned to leverage that fact? I'll give you a few hints. Neonazi AfD in Germany has a lesbian leader with a Sri Lankan partner, the italian far right party (staunch defender of family values) has a leader who's a never married single mom (and now she's Italy's prime minister), then you already mentioned Trump and Vance.
Don't get me wrong, Usha Vance, Melania Trump, Giorgia Meloni, Alice Weidel aren't being exploited. They are all formidable persons who got to the top by out-assholing everyone else on their side and by actively banking on their "non traditional" status to emerge in ultra-conservative environments.
So they don't need to rationalize anything. It's all already quite rational and by design.
People are not generally as self-reflective as you might think; when someone settles upon a core belief, they tend to stick with it for the rest of their lives, with any challenge to it being treated as a threat rather than as a potential opportunity for growth. You might think that when a core belief is completely wrong and leads to disastrous negative consequences that this might at be enough to lead someone to give it up, but strangely the mind does not actually work this way.
(I mean, I am not saying that these people are not also evil and/or oily snakes, but I think that there is value in observing the mental fallacies at work in others so that we can better spot them at work in ourselves, since our own mind is the one thing that we have at least some limited control over.)
You're making the error of assuming conservatives have a status quo, or a party line, or any agenda other than being evil.
Kick down the ladder now that they made it to the top.
DEI for me but not for thee?